From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b6de2fa4828c91e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10261c,4b6de2fa4828c91e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,564174f9610b9ca
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 11232c,c1dbff6d6f4fd165
X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,4b6de2fa4828c91e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 22:24:49 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pascal.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft de-emphasizing C#  ?
Date: 28 Apr 2003 22:24:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <a3eaa964.0304282124.4b86fbf6@posting.google.com>
References: <3EAAC29B.4050700@prodigy.net>
 <8900o-4qh.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.8.249.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051593889 10174 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2003 05:24:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2003 05:24:49 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62880 comp.lang.ada:36713
 comp.lang.fortran:36413 comp.lang.pascal.misc:4171 misc.misc:13796
Date: 2003-04-29T05:24:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

[about C# not being the only language of .NET]

> C# is 1 of 20 languages supported by, among other things, the MSIL.
> I'll admit to some curiosity as to how many languages are
> supported by Java bytecode -- Java of course being one of them.

Well, at least Ada compiles into Java bytecode as well, in at
least one commercial compiler.

Which raises an interesting point; why not Pascal, which used to
compile to a bytecode in one version (UCSD Pascal); surely a
port to translate to Java bytecode instead should be fairly
straightforward?

> However, there's a flip side: Java bytecode may support only one
> language, but that could mean it supports it very well. :-)

But on the gripping hand, targeting other language compilers
also to Java bytecode would be a tremendous portability boost
for those other languages, and give them ready access to the
massive Java libraries and open source movement.  I'd love to
see a Fortran 95 to Java bytecode compiler, e.g.

xanthian.